Recently, Attorney Hu Rui of Beijing King&Capital Law Firm represented a client in a case involving the alleged crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. Through a precise grasp of the facts, solid legal expertise, and consistent, effective communication, he successfully secured bail pending trial for a senior management client in the case. This not only protected the client’s legitimate rights and interests but also demonstrated the professional competence and pragmatic approach of a criminal defense attorney.
Deep Expertise in Economic Crimes Involving the Public; Experience with Similar Cases Leads to Effective Defense
Attorney Hu Rui has long represented clients in economic crime cases involving the public, such as illegal fundraising and illegal absorption of public deposits. He has a profound understanding of two key dimensions in handling such cases:
First, the substantive determination dimension: Such cases follow a tiered accountability logic of “decision-making level—management level—operational level—support level.” Key aspects of a systematic defense in this area include defining the boundaries of liability for personnel at different levels, determining whether the presumption of the client’s subjective knowledge holds, and accurately assessing and reducing the involved amounts and illicit gains.
Second, the procedural milestones and criminal policy dimension: The outcome of these cases is closely tied to local criminal policies, the progress of asset recovery and restitution, and the stability maintenance situation, and procedural windows of opportunity are fleeting. Whether favorable facts can be brought to the attention of the investigating authorities immediately at the outset of the investigation, whether the return of ill-gotten gains and compensation can be completed before critical deadlines, and whether defense arguments can be submitted to the case handler’s desk in a timely manner during the early stages of review often directly determine whether the defendant can be granted bail or even receive a subsequent decision of non-prosecution. Once the golden window for intervention is missed—and the case proceeds to the next stage of litigation or policy guidelines are tightened—the scope for defense will be significantly reduced, and the defendant’s situation will consequently become more precarious.
Drawing on extensive case handling experience in these two areas, and in conjunction with relevant legal provisions and criminal policies, Attorney Hu Rui established an overarching strategy of “proactive defense and early intervention,” promptly completing key tasks such as client visits, evidence collection, restitution and compensation, and the submission of defense arguments.
Clarifying the Core of the Case, Laying a Solid Foundation for the Defense
Upon accepting the retainer, Attorney Hu Rui’s primary task was to comprehensively review the facts of the case and identify key exculpatory circumstances. Through multiple visits to the detention center to meet with the client, the attorney verified four key facts:
First, although the client held a managerial position at the company in question, this was essentially a “nominal” appointment. The client did not participate in the company’s personnel appointments or day-to-day management, did not have authority over fund transfers or project approvals, and did not exercise any substantive managerial authority.
Second, core aspects of the company’s operations—including the design of financial products, the management of the fund pool, external promotional fundraising, and the collection and allocation of funds—were all controlled by key company personnel. The client did not participate in core operational decision-making and lacked subjective knowledge of the pattern of illegal public deposit absorption.
Third, of the tens of millions of yuan involved in the illegal public deposit absorption, the majority consisted of family savings contributed by the client and his relatives, none of which were ultimately recovered; thus, he also qualifies as a victim in this case.
Fourth, after the company became unable to make payments, the defendant did not evade responsibility but instead proactively used his remaining personal savings to reimburse multiple investors nearly one million yuan, actively compensating for their losses and demonstrating a clear attitude of remorse.
To strengthen the persuasiveness of the defense arguments, the attorney undertook evidence preservation efforts: contacting investors who had received reimbursements, collecting and organizing key supporting documents such as transfer records and WeChat screenshots to form a complete chain of evidence; Regarding points of contention, such as the determination of the amount involved, the lawyer repeatedly cross-checked relevant records, laying an evidentiary foundation for reducing the alleged amount and accurately determining the defendant’s status and role.
Precise Application of the Law to Construct a Multi-Layered Defense System
Attorney Hu Rui, combining the facts of the case with legal provisions, constructed a defense system characterized by clear layers and rigorous logic.
Regarding the determination of the client’s status, the attorney argued that identifying the “directly responsible manager” in corporate crime cases should not rely solely on job titles; rather, it is essential to examine whether the individual actually participated in corporate decision-making and whether they played an organizational or leadership role in the illegal fundraising activities. In this case, the client neither controlled the company’s core operations nor participated in the design of the deposit-gathering model; they merely held a nominal management position and, therefore, should not be legally classified as a “directly responsible manager” in the context of illegal fundraising crimes.
Regarding the assessment of restitution, the defense counsel argued that the nearly one million yuan the defendant voluntarily returned to investors prior to the case coming to light is consistent in nature with the funds ordered to be returned during judicial proceedings; both are intended to compensate participants for their losses and should therefore be evaluated as restitution under the law, to be fully considered when assessing social danger and the necessity of pretrial detention; At the same time, this restitution objectively alleviated the dissatisfaction of some participants in the fundraising scheme, reduced factors contributing to social instability, and conserved judicial resources.
Regarding the argument on social danger, the defense counsel systematically elaborated on the matter in light of the criminal justice policy of “minimizing arrests, exercising caution in prosecution, and exercising caution in detention”: First, the client’s involvement in the case was minimal; he did not participate in core criminal activities and played only a secondary and auxiliary role in the joint criminal conduct; Second, after being taken into custody, the client made truthful confessions, voluntarily returned the funds, and expressed remorse; there is no possibility of destroying, fabricating evidence, or colluding with others; third, the client is also a victim himself; his motives for the crime and level of subjective malice differ fundamentally from those of the core members who actively sought illegal gains, and there is no possibility of reoffending; fourth, the client’s family faces actual financial difficulties, and granting him bail pending trial would not pose a risk to social safety.
Ongoing Professional Communication Leads to Adoption of Defense Arguments
Throughout the defense process, Attorney Hu Rui maintained professional and effective communication with the judicial authorities. Addressing the core points of contention in the case, the attorney submitted written defense briefs on multiple occasions, detailing the client’s role in the case, the circumstances of restitution, the family’s financial hardships, and the relevant legal basis. He also engaged in thorough and repeated discussions with the case handlers regarding issues such as the offset of restitution against penalties and the determination of the circumstances of the offense.
The attorney consistently adhered to the facts as the basis and the law as the standard, fully presenting objective facts favorable to the client while actively cooperating with judicial authorities to verify relevant circumstances. Ultimately, the defense arguments were accepted by the judicial authorities, and the attorney successfully secured bail pending trial for the client.
